DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.216 of 18-05-2011 Decided on 27-06-2011
Ravinder Pal Singh, ADA, aged about 50 years, son of Sh. Malook Singh, resident of House No.487, Bhagu Road, Model Town, Bathinda-151001. .......Complainant Versus
The Managing Director, Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070. The General Manager, Tata Automobiles Bathinda, Opp. ITI, Mansa Road, Bathinda. Quartermaster General Branch, Deputy Directorate General Canteen Stores Department, New Delhi. The Area Manager,Canteen Stores Department (CSD Depot) Bathinda Cantt.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Ish Kumar, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. Amanpal Singh Sekhon, counsel for opposite party No.2. None for opposite party Nos.1,3&4.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is retired from the Army as Junior Commissioned Officer (JCO) and he booked Swift Car VDI on 04.01.2011 by paying the booking amount of Rs.5,000/- against Canteen Stores Department (CSD) quota. The car was likely to be delivered in the month of May 2011 as per the existing waiting list of the said car. On 10.03.2011, the complainant visited the opposite party No.4 for depositing all the relevant documents/paper duly completed in all respects required to fulfill all the formalities for issuing local supply order to the opposite party No.2 but the opposite party No.4 refused to receive the said documents on the pretext that the sale of cars to Personnel Below Officers Rank (PBOR) had been stopped by the opposite party No.3 till 31.03.2011 due to some funds problems. On 02.04.2011, the complainant again visited the opposite party No.4 for the same purpose but the opposite party No.4 again refused to receive the said documents on the pretext that the sale of cars to Personnel Below Officers Rank had been stopped by the opposite party No.3 till 30.06.2011 due to non allotment of funds. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 to maintain booking order of the car and to deliver the said car, when the supply order of the car will be issued to the opposite party No.2 by the opposite party No.4. He wrote a registered letter dated 14.04.2011 to the opposite party No.2 stating that the opposite party No.4 is not in a position to issue supply order before 30.06.2011 and the complainant is unable to take the delivery of the said car in the month of May, 2011 and booking order of the said car be maintained and the same be delivered to the complainant when the supply order is issued by the opposite party No.4. The complainant has further alleged that on 09.05.2011, the opposite party No.2 wrote a letter that “you have booked one Swift Dzire VDI on 04.01.2011 which is likely to available during May, 2011. You are therefore requested to kindly arrange the LS order for the delivery of the vehicle from CDS Depot. If you are unable to take the delivery of the vehicle without LS order through CSD Depot, it will seem to be treated as the booking cancelled and your booking amount will be refunded to you.” Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite party Nos.1&2 not to cancel the booking order of the car of the complainant and deliver the car to the complainant when the supply order will be issued by the opposite party No.4 alongwith cost and compensation. 2. The opposite party No.1 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant has booked the vehicle by making advance payment of Rs.5,000/- and has taken the support of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission in matter of Hiralal Jairam Thakkar in which, it is held that merely entering into an agreement for sale and making advance payment is not a consumer dispute to be adjudicated under the Act. The complainant is not consumer as there is no concluded transaction of sale and purchase for becoming consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards booking of the vehicle through Canteen Stores Department, meaning thereby, entering into an agreement for sale of vehicle with the opposite party No.2 by making some advance payment. The opposite party No.1 has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal No.708 of 2007 in case titled Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. Purushottam Lal (HUF) and Anr. Wherein it has been held that the Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act and it gives remedy to the consumer in certain circumstances. Before the consumer can get any remedy against the opposite parties from the fora, set up under the Act, it must establish that there is some deficiency of service by the opposite parties. Both the 'deficiency' and 'service' have been defined under Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of the Act. The question of defect in the car does not arise since the car was not delivered to the complainant. Moreover, the relation between the opposite party Nos.1&2 are of principal to principal basis. 3. The opposite party No.2 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the opposite party No.1 sells the vehicle to its dealers including the opposite party No.2 under the dealership agreement against C Form payment in terms of Central Sales Tax Act. The dealers sell the same to their customers under their own invoice and sale certificates under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The relation between the opposite party Nos.1&2 are based on principal to principal and is governed by the dealership agreement as enumerated in Class C of recitals of the said agreement. The opposite party No.2 has authority to represent the opposite party No.1 as prescribed in Clause 5 of the said dealership agreement. The opposite party No.1 has neither received any amount for booking of the said vehicle from the complainant nor there is any communication to have been exchanged between the complainant and the opposite party No.1. 4. On behalf of the opposite party No.4, Sh. Mohal Lal, A.R. appeared on 03.06.2011. Thereafter, none appear on behalf of opposite party Nos.1,3&4. 5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 6. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 7. The complainant has booked one Swift Car VDI through Canteen Stores Department (CSD) after paying Rs.5,000/- on 04.01.2011 which was tentative to be delivered in the month of May 2011 according to the waiting list of the said car. On 10.03.2011, the complainant approached the opposite party No.4 alongwith some relevant documents/papers duly completed in all respects but the opposite party No.4 refused to receive the said documents on the pretext that the sale of cars to Personnel Below Officers Rank (PBOR) had been stopped by the opposite party No.3 till 31.03.2011 due to some funds problems. On 02.04.2011, the complainant approached the opposite party No.4 but the opposite party No.4 again refused to receive the said documents on the pretext that the sale of cars to Personnel Below Officers Rank had been stopped by the opposite party No.3 till 30.06.2011 due to non allotment of funds. In the mean time, the complainant filed the present complaint on 18.05.2011 seeking directions of this Forum not to cancel the booking order of the car of the complainant and deliver the same to the complainant when the supply of the order be issued by the opposite party No.4. The complainant has not alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The Consumer Protection Act is a Special Act and remedy under the said 'Act' is confined to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Before the consumer can get any remedy against the opposite parties from the fora, set up under the Act, it must establish that there is some deficiency of service by the opposite parties. Both the 'deficiency' and 'service' have been defined under Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of the Act. 8. In the present case, no such allegations are levelled on the opposite parties. Moreover, the relation between the opposite party Nos.1&2 are on principal to principal basis. The sanction has been stopped by the opposite party No.4 due to lack of funds till June 2011. During pendency, the complainant has filed an application for interim injunction not to cancel the booking of the car booked by the applicant with the opposite party No.2, authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 vide order/Invoice No.SOB10001541 dated 04.01.2011 till the disposal of the complaint. The reply was filed by the opposite parties. In this letter, the opposite party No.2 has mentioned that the complainant has issued a letter dated 14.04.2011 to the opposite party No.2 requesting them to maintain his booking. The complainant himself could not arrange the LS order and delivery of vehicle through CSD, the opposite party No.2 also wrote a letter to the complainant in this regard on 09.05.2011 requesting him to arrange the LS order for the delivery of vehicle through CSD Depot and in case of default, his booking would be deemed cancelled and further informed that the booking amount is refundable. The complainant himself is incapacitated to take the delivery of the car in question and as such, the opposite party No.2 is not bound to maintain the booking order of the complainant for indefinite period and has every right to cancel the same. The opposite party No.2 is ready to refund the amount deposited by the complainant with it and the complainant can take the refund of Rs.5,000/- anytime on approaching the opposite party No.2. 9. The complainant filed an application for seeking interim injunction, its reply was filed by the opposite party No.2. Arguments on application heard. As the relief claimed under main complaint as well as application are same and there are no allegations of deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. The opposite party No.2 is ready to refund the booking amount if the complainant file claim for that. Therefore, an application for interim injunction as well as main complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 27.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
